Healthcare practice placements: back to the drawing board?

YesBackground: Sourcing healthcare practice placements continues to present a challenge for higher education institutions. Equally, the provision of clinical placements by healthcare providers is not at the forefront of their agenda. In view of this, the historic and traditional models of clinical placements is becoming more difficult to provide. In light of this, new models of clinical placements are being explored. Aims: This literature review explores the differing models of clinical placements in use and examines the merits and limitation of each. Methods: A mixed-methods literature review with a pragmatic approach has been used. Findings: Several placement models were described, including the traditional 1:1 model as well as 2:1, 3:1. The hub and spoke, capacity development facilitator, collaborative learning in practice and role emerging placement models were also discussed. Conclusion: There is a considerable paucity of high-quality evidence evaluating differing placement modules. Further research is required to evaluate the differing placement models from a students, clinical educators and service user’s perspective

Determination of losses of nutrients and nematicides on a banana plantation in the Atlantic zone

15 fig. 18 tab. 3 ref. Sum. (En). Tambi?n como: Field Report - Atlantic Zone Programme (CATIE-AUW-MAG) no. 8

La metodología USTED Uso Sostenible de Tierras en Desarrollo

1 tab. Basado en el documento "Sustainable land use planning in Costa Rica" preparado por R. Alfaro et a

La metodolog?a USTED Uso Sostenible de Tierras en Desarrollo

1 tab. Basado en el documento "Sustainable land use planning in Costa Rica" preparado por R. Alfaro et a

Disinvestment in the presence of uncertainty: Description of a novel, multi-group, disinvestment trial design and protocol for an application to reduce or cease use of mobilisation alarms for preventing falls in hospitals

Disinvestment is the removal or reduction of previously provided practices or services, and has typically been undertaken where a practice or service has been clearly shown to be ineffective, inefficient and/or harmful. However, practices and services that have uncertain evidence of effectiveness, efficiency and safety can also be considered as candidates for disinvestment. Disinvestment from these practices and services is risky as they may yet prove to be beneficial if further evidence becomes available. A novel research approach has previously been described for this situation, allowing disinvestment to take place while simultaneously generating evidence previously missing from consideration. In this paper, we describe how this approach can be expanded to situations where three or more conditions are of relevance, and describe the protocol for a trial examining the reduction and elimination of use of mobilisation alarms on hospital wards to prevent patient falls. Our approach utilises a 3-group, concurrent, non-inferiority, stepped wedge, randomised design with an embedded parallel, cluster randomised design. Eighteen hospital wards with high rates of alarm use (>3%) will be paired within their health service and randomly allocated to a calendar month when they will transition to a “Reduced” (<3%) or “Eliminated” (0%) mobilisation alarm condition. Dynamic randomisation will be used to determine which ward in each pair will be allocated to either the reduced or eliminated condition to promote equivalence between wards for the embedded parallel, cluster randomised component of the design. A project governance committee will set non-inferiority margins. The primary outcome will be rates of falls. Secondary clinical, process, safety, and economic outcomes will be collected and a concurrent economic evaluation undertaken